Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 316 (ORI)

Surendra Kumar Barik v. State of Orissa

2008-04-11

I.MAHANTY

body2008
ORDER 11.04.2008 — Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Collector, Jajpur in Appeal Case No.30 of 2006 vide Annexure-10, refusing to renew the PDS license of the petitioner on the ground of alleged violation of O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal Case No.69 of 2006 before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government and the appellate authority has affirmed the order passed by the Collector on the ground that there was sufficient ground to deny renewal of license to the petitioner, but also directed that in future, if there is appointment of Kerosene oil sub-wholesaler by the district administration and the petitioner applies for the same, his application may be considered taking into account the past performance and conduct. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the error in the appellate order submits that it is clear from the certificate (Annexure-3) issued by the B.D.O. concerned to the petitioner whereas in appellate order, it is allegedly the peti¬tioner’s lack of performance as a ‘wholesaler’ has been basis of the decision. But, in the said certificate, the B.D.O. himself has certified that the petitioner was discharging his duty very well apart from regularly lifting his monthly quota and distrib¬utes the same to the retailers in terms of the allotment by the B.D.O.. He further asserts that once such certification is issued by the B.D.O. upon joint verification of the petitioner’s prem¬ises for recommending his renewal for the subsequent year 2006-07, the alleged lack of performance is on the part of the peti¬tioner is only to eye-wash for the purpose of not granting him renewal. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the appellate authority has not even dealt with the issues on the basis of which petitioner’s license was not renewed and has passed mere observation that the application would be considered in future. This observation is of little assistance to the petitioner, in the present case since he is entitled to the renewal his licence in accordance with law. This observation is of little assistance to the petitioner, in the present case since he is entitled to the renewal his licence in accordance with law. Except the allegation that the licensee has not performed his duty properly, it is clear from the impugned order that neither the order of the Collector nor the order of the appellate author¬ity indicate any basis for such a conclusion that the petitioner had not performed his duty in accordance with the requirements. On the contrary, the B.D.O’s certification and recommendation for renewal speaks otherwise and in fact, supports the stand taken by the petitioner that he has performed his duty in accordance with the requirements with law. In other words, this is a clear case where the conclusions arrived at in the impugned order under Annexures 10 and 12 do not contain any reason or basis for the same. Accordingly, orders under Annexure-10 and 12 are quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to move the application for renewal of license for the year 2008-09 before the Collector, Jajpur and the same may be considered in accordance with the newly enacted O.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008 within a period of month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.